LA3: Cell phone ping to locate def in a shooting investigation was exigent

“In our view, the trial court did not err in finding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless procurement of Defendant’s cell-site information. Defendant was attempting to flee from the investigation of this violent crime, [and there was a serious risk the assault victim would die, thus] creating an exigency to preserve evidence and protect the public. In addition, the scope of the information sought and obtained by police was limited to Defendant’s location. The police received the ‘ping’ location to execute a valid arrest warrant, not to obtain other information.” State v. Artis, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2105 (La. App. 3 Cir. Dec. 6, 2023).

Defendant was arrested at the bottom of the stairs in his house, and the protective sweep of the adjoining room to that was reasonable. United States v. Ackerman, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32482 (8th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023).*

Defendant was observed in a high crime area walking and checking his waistband like he was armed and frequently checking the patrol car as it drove by was all reasonable suspicion. In the Int. of State J.G., 2023 La. App. LEXIS 2111 ( La. App. 4 Cir. Dec. 7, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.